Would You Support this Amendment?

[joG]

Would you support an Amendment to the US Constitution that makes Supreme Court justices elected officials, rather than appointed ones? Should they be elected directly by the people, or by Congress? Please, post the reasoning behind your answer.

Personally, I can see two sides of this argument. On one hand, the Court has not done too well with its powers of interpretation recently, as is exemplified by the same-sex marriage ruling, in which they decided that marriage laws were not up to the states, despite the fact that marriage is not even mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, as many recent appointees don't seem to understand how to properly interpret our nation's foundational document, perhaps We The People should take over and elect the justices. However, given that popular sentiment is moving ever-further to the left, there is a strong chance that such a measure would only make the situation worse. And, besides, do we need to subject the population to yet another type of election season? Perhaps this problem might be avoided by having them elected by the Congress?

"Trump for Justice!"

 

[haymarket]

While I would not change the current process of nomination and confirmation, I could support a term limit amendment allowing for a maximum of 20 years on the Court.

 

[Black Dog]

While I would not change the current process of nomination and confirmation, I could support a term limit amendment allowing for a maximum of 20 years on the Court.

That would actually not be a bad idea. No government held office like Senators, judges etc should be life time. That is a major problem with our system. It invites apathy and corruption.

 

[roguenuke]

How does that sentence even make sense? The law is the law, not whatever you want it to be. If the words on the paper can mean whatever we want them to mean then we might as well not have a Constitution at all.

The law is whatever we want it to be, we the people as a whole. We decide the spirit and the meaning of the law through judges and elected officials.

 

[Kal'Stang]

While I would not change the current process of nomination and confirmation, I could support a term limit amendment allowing for a maximum of 20 years on the Court.

That would actually not be a bad idea. No government held office like Senators, judges etc should be life time. That is a major problem with our system. It invites apathy and corruption.

Three problems with a 20 year term limit.

1st: A 20 year term limit would make it to where it would fall on an election year. Look at what is happening with this election. People are more concerned with appointing a judge that follows their ideology than with whether or not we have valid, viable POTUS's. They're not caring who gets elected so long as its "their side" so that they can appoint a SCOTUS judge that fits their ideology. Instead of what a SCOTUS judge SHOULD be about. Upholding the Constitution and the BoR's no matter ideology.

Right now a President is elected every 4 years. In just 5 elections SCOTUS judges would be being replaced. For the Senate/Congress we're having elections pretty much every 2 years due to the staggered nature of how its set up. The Presidential elections and the Senate/Congress elections are even numbered years. Combine that with the long term limit of 20 years as is being suggested here that means that elections are not going to be just about who would best be POTUS/Senator/Congressmen, but about who should be appointed as a SCOTUS judge. Again, elections of POTUS/Senate/Congress would be geared toward "fixing" SCOTUS rulings to favor X party.

2nd: If such a term limit were to be placed on SCOTUS judges it would HAVE to be staggered like we have with the Senate/Congress elections. Not a particularly good idea to replace every single judge at the same time. Easy fix, but something that should be looked at never the less when talking about term limits for what used to be a life time position.

3rd: SCOTUS's main function is to decide on the Constitutionality of XYZ laws. By putting term limits on SCOTUS judges it would make it to where the Constitution could be reinterpreted even more than it is now. If people think that its bad now...wait till you have term limits for the position. I wish there was a way to prevent SCOTUS judges from ruling based on ideology, but frankly there's not. Each time that a SCOTUS judge is appointed they bring their ideology of how something in the Constitution should be interpreted. Regardless of the actual true intent of the writers of the Constitution/BoR's. I'm a big believer that if something about the Constitution should be changed due to the changing demographics/ideology of the times then it should be changed via the amendment process. That is what it was made for and is why the Constitution is considered a "living document". Because its changeable to fit the times. It should NOT be changed via re-interpretations based on the ideology of 9 people. It SHOULD be changed based on the ideology of the entire society combined where possible, where not possible then it should be changed based on the ideology of 2/3rds of the society.

 

[Kal'Stang]

The law is whatever we want it to be, we the people as a whole. We decide the spirit and the meaning of the law through judges and elected officials.

Judges should NOT be interpreting the law based on what they, or we, "want" it to be. Judges should be basing their rulings on what the law IS and is MEANT to be. Elected officials, fine, their job is to make the laws to fit with the times. But not judges.

 

[Black Dog]

Three problems with a 20 year term limit.

1st: A 20 year term limit would make it to where it would fall on an election year. Look at what is happening with this election. People are more concerned with appointing a judge that follows their ideology than with whether or not we have valid, viable POTUS's. They're not caring who gets elected so long as its "their side" so that they can appoint a SCOTUS judge that fits their ideology. Instead of what a SCOTUS judge SHOULD be about. Upholding the Constitution and the BoR's no matter ideology.

Right now a President is elected every 4 years. In just 5 elections SCOTUS judges would be being replaced. For the Senate/Congress we're having elections pretty much every 2 years due to the staggered nature of how its set up. The Presidential elections and the Senate/Congress elections are even numbered years. Combine that with the long term limit of 20 years as is being suggested here that means that elections are not going to be just about who would best be POTUS/Senator/Congressmen, but about who should be appointed as a SCOTUS judge. Again, elections of POTUS/Senate/Congress would be geared toward "fixing" SCOTUS rulings to favor X party.

2nd: If such a term limit were to be placed on SCOTUS judges it would HAVE to be staggered like we have with the Senate/Congress elections. Not a particularly good idea to replace every single judge at the same time. Easy fix, but something that should be looked at never the less when talking about term limits for what used to be a life time position.

3rd: SCOTUS's main function is to decide on the Constitutionality of XYZ laws. By putting term limits on SCOTUS judges it would make it to where the Constitution could be reinterpreted even more than it is now. If people think that its bad now...wait till you have term limits for the position. I wish there was a way to prevent SCOTUS judges from ruling based on ideology, but frankly there's not. Each time that a SCOTUS judge is appointed they bring their ideology of how something in the Constitution should be interpreted. Regardless of the actual true intent of the writers of the Constitution/BoR's. I'm a big believer that if something about the Constitution should be changed due to the changing demographics/ideology of the times then it should be changed via the amendment process. That is what it was made for and is why the Constitution is considered a "living document". Because its changeable to fit the times. It should NOT be changed via re-interpretations based on the ideology of 9 people. It SHOULD be changed based on the ideology of the entire society combined where possible, where not possible then it should be changed based on the ideology of 2/3rds of the society.

I don't care if it falls on an election. Elections have been a circus for years, and each of the last 4 or 5 elections has been about judges anyway.

So I am going to agree to disagree.

 

[roguenuke]

Judges should NOT be interpreting the law based on what they, or we, "want" it to be. Judges should be basing their rulings on what the law IS and is MEANT to be. Elected officials, fine, their job is to make the laws to fit with the times. But not judges.

A judges job is interpretation, because a) you will never get a complete agreement on either what words mean nor why people want a law in place to begin with, and b) times change. Laws must change with them.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I don't care if it falls on an election. Elections have been a circus for years, and each of the last 4 or 5 elections has been about judges anyway.

So I am going to agree to disagree.

You and I agree that elections have been a circus for years and you want to add SCOTUS judges to the mix of that circus? Yeah, we're definitely going to have to agree to disagree. And the last 4-5 elections haven't been like this particular one. This election is more than likely going to determine 3-4 SCOTUS (ages of them ranging from 84-69 of our oldest SCOTUS judges by next year) positions...not counting Scalia's position that is being discussed right now. We haven't had that many positions up for grabs since Eisenhower and Roosevelt. Those were also the years that lots of things changed regarding how things were ruled on A LOT due to SCOTUS judges being replaced. Setting a term limit would just make all of this far more pronounced.

 

[Kal'Stang]

A judges job is interpretation, because a) you will never get a complete agreement on either what words mean nor why people want a law in place to begin with, and b) times change. Laws must change with them.

Interpretation of a law should never be about "want". I agree that you will get different interpretations. That's the nature of being human. But basing an interpretation on a "want" is the worst possible thing anyone could every do. A good example of that is marijuana laws. If MJ laws were applied fairly we wouldn't have a perceived racism problem in our justice system. All because of peoples "wants".

And "times changing" is NOT a valid reason for reinterpreting a law. Times changing is a valid reason for changing a law via the legislative process. But NOT through the judicial process. There's a reason that the FF's put in the Amendment Clause into the Constitution. And that is to make it to where the Constitution could be changed to fit with the times. Not be reinterpretation based on "wants".

 

[molten_dragon]

I would absolutely be against any sort of term limit or re-election system for Supreme Court justices. But as long as they were elected to lifetime terms like current appointments, I don't think it would make things any worse. But I don't think it would make things any better either.

All in all I think the current system is fine.

 

[RJApple]

Oh just stop the partisan claptrap. Pretty much everyone in this thread is disagreeing with the OP, including those that consider themselves conservative/republican. Hell, even Paleocon is disagreeing with the OP and agreeing with everyone else. That alone should tell you something.

I should clarify, I wasn't taking one side over the other. I just thought it would make for an interesting discussion.

"Trump for Justice!"

Oh God, no!

 

[Kal'Stang]

BTW, I voted "No, the current system is fine". I just want to add the caveat that the current system is NOT fine. But it is the best that we're going to get for now until another, better system is put in place. Don't know what that system would be like or entail. But I do know that term limits or electing judges is NOT the way to go.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I should clarify, I wasn't taking one side over the other. I just thought it would make for an interesting discussion.

I have no problem with you posing the question. It will no doubt be posed again by other people.

 

[RJApple]

I have no problem with you posing the question. It will no doubt be posed again by other people.

I'm sure it will; it is definitely something of a perennial issue that will be brought up from now until the end of the country.

 

[earthworm]

Elected by the people ?
HELL NO !!!!!
Our people are simply not smart enough .. yet ...
Our system does need to be improved ..we do need a higher class of law makers ..what the conservatives are doing is borderline criminal ..
Perhaps a new law stating that within three days a nominee is presented to Congress and then they have three days to accept or reject .. with a final decision within 20 days ..

 

[haymarket]

Three problems with a 20 year term limit.

1st: A 20 year term limit would make it to where it would fall on an election year. Look at what is happening with this election. People are more concerned with appointing a judge that follows their ideology than with whether or not we have valid, viable POTUS's. They're not caring who gets elected so long as its "their side" so that they can appoint a SCOTUS judge that fits their ideology. Instead of what a SCOTUS judge SHOULD be about. Upholding the Constitution and the BoR's no matter ideology.

Right now a President is elected every 4 years. In just 5 elections SCOTUS judges would be being replaced. For the Senate/Congress we're having elections pretty much every 2 years due to the staggered nature of how its set up. The Presidential elections and the Senate/Congress elections are even numbered years. Combine that with the long term limit of 20 years as is being suggested here that means that elections are not going to be just about who would best be POTUS/Senator/Congressmen, but about who should be appointed as a SCOTUS judge. Again, elections of POTUS/Senate/Congress would be geared toward "fixing" SCOTUS rulings to favor X party.

2nd: If such a term limit were to be placed on SCOTUS judges it would HAVE to be staggered like we have with the Senate/Congress elections. Not a particularly good idea to replace every single judge at the same time. Easy fix, but something that should be looked at never the less when talking about term limits for what used to be a life time position.

3rd: SCOTUS's main function is to decide on the Constitutionality of XYZ laws. By putting term limits on SCOTUS judges it would make it to where the Constitution could be reinterpreted even more than it is now. If people think that its bad now...wait till you have term limits for the position. I wish there was a way to prevent SCOTUS judges from ruling based on ideology, but frankly there's not. Each time that a SCOTUS judge is appointed they bring their ideology of how something in the Constitution should be interpreted. Regardless of the actual true intent of the writers of the Constitution/BoR's. I'm a big believer that if something about the Constitution should be changed due to the changing demographics/ideology of the times then it should be changed via the amendment process. That is what it was made for and is why the Constitution is considered a "living document". Because its changeable to fit the times. It should NOT be changed via re-interpretations based on the ideology of 9 people. It SHOULD be changed based on the ideology of the entire society combined where possible, where not possible then it should be changed based on the ideology of 2/3rds of the society.

You bring up some valid points. I put forth 20 years simply as a number off the top of my head. And it would coincide with the year they took the bench so it might not be an election year.

As the issue of politicizing appointments - truthfully, that is something we need a bit more of - at least more involvement and more interest from the citizenry. And if that comes in the campaign - perhaps that would be a good thing.

 

[Black Dog]

You and I agree that elections have been a circus for years and you want to add SCOTUS judges to the mix of that circus? Yeah, we're definitely going to have to agree to disagree.

Like I already said it IS part of it already. So instead of mocking me, you should be reading what I said.

And the last 4-5 elections haven't been like this particular one. This election is more than likely going to determine 3-4 SCOTUS (ages of them ranging from 84-69 of our oldest SCOTUS judges by next year) positions...not counting Scalia's position that is being discussed right now. We haven't had that many positions up for grabs since Eisenhower and Roosevelt. Those were also the years that lots of things changed regarding how things were ruled on A LOT due to SCOTUS judges being replaced. Setting a term limit would just make all of this far more pronounced.

Like I said it already IS a part of it.

 

[roguenuke]

Interpretation of a law should never be about "want". I agree that you will get different interpretations. That's the nature of being human. But basing an interpretation on a "want" is the worst possible thing anyone could every do. A good example of that is marijuana laws. If MJ laws were applied fairly we wouldn't have a perceived racism problem in our justice system. All because of peoples "wants".

And "times changing" is NOT a valid reason for reinterpreting a law. Times changing is a valid reason for changing a law via the legislative process. But NOT through the judicial process. There's a reason that the FF's put in the Amendment Clause into the Constitution. And that is to make it to where the Constitution could be changed to fit with the times. Not be reinterpretation based on "wants".

Why we want certain laws in place is why they end up in place to begin with. If you proposed a law to the public to remove the licenses of those over 55 you'd have to show why you want the law in place, others would show why they don't want such a law in place and the legislatures on both sides would debate and decide if the law went into place based on their wants.

The Constitution guarantees rights that people wanted in place for various reasons.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Not how our system of checks and balances under separation of powers works. In our country federal and state courts are able to review and declare the constitutionality of legislation brought before a court with jurisdiction. (A Massachusetts law cannot be reviewed by a court in Maine, although any Massachusetts State Court and a Federal Court in the 1st Judicial District can). This was established as U.S. doctrine in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).



Actually that defines a society under either a common law legal system, or a separation of powers system like ours. For example: The U.K. has a common law system allowing courts to make law through legal decisions, but Parliament also makes law through statutes. On the other hand an oligarchy would be a government directly run by a small cabal or family. If it exists here in the USA it would be the 60 American Billionaires who own our Congress.

The courts of late have overturned and rewritten many laws passed by the people's elected representatives, and in 'liberal land' it is expected that the court's opinion shall reign supreme unless overturned by a higher court. And once the SCOTUS has ruled, that's it. THAT is the law. Never mind what the people's representatives intended the law to be. The Founders certainly never intended the court to have such power and in fact intended that the judiciary be the weakest of the three parts of government so that the courts would not present a danger to the people's liberties. The court was given absolutely no power to make or change the law.

But now the court decides how we the people shall live our lives. David Barton, author and historian, recently said: "“The courts and the judiciary — it seems like they’re into everything today,”. . . “They have the final word in shaping our national policies on things from healthcare, to marriage. From the right of personal self-protection to public religious expressions, and from criminal justice matters to military policy issues. And we let them do it!”

Definition: Oligarchy: a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution. The judiciary would certainly fit that definition.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The courts of late have overturned and rewritten many laws passed by the people's elected representatives, and in 'liberal land' it is expected that the court's opinion shall reign supreme unless overturned by a higher court. And once the SCOTUS has ruled, that's it. THAT is the law. Never mind what the people's representatives intended the law to be. The Founders certainly never intended the court to have such power and in fact intended that the judiciary be the weakest of the three parts of government so that the courts would not present a danger to the people's liberties. The court was given absolutely no power to make or change the law.

But now the court decides how we the people shall live our lives. David Barton, author and historian, recently said: "“The courts and the judiciary — it seems like they’re into everything today,”. . . “They have the final word in shaping our national policies on things from healthcare, to marriage. From the right of personal self-protection to public religious expressions, and from criminal justice matters to military policy issues. And we let them do it!”

Definition: Oligarchy: a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution. The judiciary would certainly fit that definition.

The "people's representatives" passed laws that allowed slavery, prohibited people of different races from marrying, prohibited people of different races from using the same restrooms, going to the same schools, or using the same entrances and exits...prohibited women from voting, or equal access to employment...allowed corporal punishment of children by school officials. There are all sorts of examples of laws passed by the "peoples representatives" that violate a citizen's constitutional rights. That is why our system allows for judicial review.

 

[antiquity]

Why are people always wanting to change our system of government....it is fine the way it is. It has worked for over 200 years.

 

[AlbqOwl]

The "people's representatives" passed laws that allowed slavery, prohibited people of different races from marrying, prohibited people of different races from using the same restrooms, going to the same schools, or using the same entrances and exits...prohibited women from voting, or equal access to employment...allowed corporal punishment of children by school officials. There are all sorts of examples of laws passed by the "peoples representatives" that violate a citizen's constitutional rights. That is why our system allows for judicial review.

The court has every authority to declare something unconstitutional. But the court was not given authority to overturn the laws passed by the people. If the court rules that this or that law is unconstitutional, then it is incumbent upon the people to change the law or change the constitution or change the judges if they think the judges are all wet. It was never intended that whatever the court decreed would become the law.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The court has every authority to declare something unconstitutional. But the court was not given authority to overturn the laws passed by the people. If the court rules that this or that law is unconstitutional, then it is incumbent upon the people to change the law or change the constitution or change the judges if they think the judges are all wet. It was never intended that whatever the court decreed would become the law.

That is EXACTLY what judicial review is all about, and rightly so!

Unconstitutional laws should be overturned in the Courts. This should not be dependent on the very "People" who were responsible for the bad laws in the first place.

Your argument supports all those bad laws attempting to restrict the rights of same sex couples to marry and obtain all the legal rights marital status protects; to prevent abortions and a woman's right to choose; essentially any individual rights one's personal morals are offended by. Examples include those State miscegenation laws overturned by Loving v. Virginia 333 U.S. 1 (1967); anti-contraception laws overturned by Griswald v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Abortion rights via Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and of course Same-sex marriage via Obergefell v. Hodges 575 U.S. __ (2015) to name just a very few examples.

Individual rights should not be held to ransom by the tyranny of any majority.

 

[AlbqOwl]

That is EXACTLY what judicial review is all about, and rightly so!

Unconstitutional laws should be overturned in the Courts. This should not be dependent on the very "People" who were responsible for the bad laws in the first place.

Your argument supports all those bad laws attempting to restrict the rights of same sex couples to marry and obtain all the legal rights marital status protects; to prevent abortions and a woman's right to choose; essentially any individual rights one's personal morals are offended by. Examples include those State miscegenation laws overturned by Loving v. Virginia 333 U.S. 1 (1967); anti-contraception laws overturned by Griswald v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Abortion rights via Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and of course Same-sex marriage via Obergefell v. Hodges 575 U.S. __ (2015) to name just a very few examples.

Individual rights should not be held to ransom by the tyranny of any majority.

The court is given authority to declare a law unconstitutional at which time the law would be considered void. It was not given authority to replace it with a law of its own choosing.